WindowView — Science

Perspectives

(092112)

Evolution and the Environment

Questions:

What real time
evidence is there to illustrate the mechanics of evolution based on recent
(present day) observations?

Is
the environment a stimulus driving a form of evolutionary change?

Might the potential
for outward changes already be contained in an array of information stored
within the DNA of each species? [This suggests most
or all change arises without the need for random mutations (i.e., typically
the assumed source for infusion of new information) and long-term multi-step
evolutionary changes, yet change comes relatively quickly in response
to outside stimuli of various types]

What
kinds of examples do we hear about concerning the genetics of adaptation
that suggest there is still more to consider ... that is, more than the
standard story so often stated concerning how evolution works?

Short
Answer:

Evolution
is commonly explained in terms of random changes leading to adaptations
... and in turn survival of a species ... but what if evolution
is nonrandom and change is based on information already in each
species-specific genetic code ... and what if nonrandom evolution
was truly observable within a human lifetime... yet this research
were to find no new species developing ... what then of evolution?

Consider
the following:

The answer is then ... we are observing microevolution,
not Darwinian macroevolution.

The environment
can serve as a significant stimulus for change in expression of
an already existent genetic code.

In other
words, the genetic code may lack little or lack no information such that sufficient information is already available
to produce the observed response (to any stimulus) ... as applied
to any particular species group.

If the
information is already there, randomness need not apply.

There
is a 'complete repository' of information held within a cell's nucleus.
Science has yet to fully understand what is there in total. So, what may
be counterintuitive — and what many scientists might at first reject
out of hand — is the suggestion that a complete and fully flexible
information base is already present within each species. Such a base exceeds
any current need or present genetic expression.

One
assumption is that this information base is the result of a random process
and building up a genetic library over time. Elsewhere we address the difficulty
in making such an assumption. There is no probable means to currently support
this. But, how this information may have been installed at some earlier
point is not our present focus, yet it's an important question to
keep in mind! Why? Because we are looking at change or adaptation from
this point onward. Is the next change to arise really evolution in the classical
sense?

Examples
commonly used to illustrate evolution can be viewed in another light to
reveal the point we are making here. For example, when we hear about bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics, insects becoming resistant to pesticides, or finches on the Galapagos Islands changing in
response to environmental and ecological conditions (e.g., changes in climate
and food supplies)we are told this is evolution in action. And yet
all such examples are responses to something in the species' environment.
And the change exhibited over an initial period of time may later be reversed
when the environment changes again. We are talking about change over brief
time spans (e.g., months, year to year, which fits the definition of what
is called microevolution) and not alteration as a species morphologically
and physiologically changes into a very different and new taxonomic life
form (that is, macroevolution or what is commonly labeled evolution).

In
the latter case we anticipate a markedly different change in information
becomes necessary to change an organism into something entirely new. The
role of the environment is perhaps more important in driving the micro-evolutionary
changes than what science reports reveal. But on further examination, such
a form of evolution is not to be confused with macroevolution— a concept
that still begs clear evidence to support itself as the workable or only
form of evolution. If you like, you may hold hope for proof of macroevolution,
but in fact we have reason to move all current examples into the microevolution
column. And here the environment can be seen as a driver that draws on information
that already exists within a species ... it has to be there already. There
is too little time for new information to come by chance to support the
level of change expressed in many of the examples given by evolution scientists.

While
all this may seem totally impossible according to the standard
story, the concept considered here is an environmentally driven form
of nonrandom variation (what you might call: 'nonrandom evolution'). This
is something that appears to be demonstrated by the data scientists keep
collecting. Yet even the newest data are commonly presented in the mold
of the standard Darwinian story. If examined critically, there is another
explanation that fits. Nonrandom variations in response to environmental
stimuli ... and not random mutations ... are driving expression and change
in species.

Yes,
changes in genetic codes can be induced in a laboratory (e.g., by radiation,
chemical, or other experimental treatment). But consider the results of
such impressive cases. Experiments resulting in alterations or a 'rearrangement'
of existing information within a code commonly produce either non-adaptive
or lethal results. This is not a process causing new information. Elsewhere,
genetic engineering directed by humans commonly moves information around
by an intelligent cause and not chance.

Yes,
there may be great potential for information resources already stored within
organisms such that no new information (or very little) need be created.
The environment sparks changes such that species show relatively rapid change
based on existing information found in the DNA. Furthermore, many of the
known examples of adaptive change may be the result of a loss of specificity.
That is, information is lost, not gained.

Consider This :

The
following discussion highlights ideas initiated by the writings of Dr. Lee
Spetner. First, we will not give an entire account of Dr. Spetner's discussion.
For the content and context in complete form, we recommend you read his
book (Not
by Chance). Second, his writing is not based on one source alone
... Dr. Spetner illustrates many examples from other sources in the scientific
literature.

The
important concept here is the way information
in an organism is used to adapt to changes in the environment. The environment
is the stimulus and the response must be relatively quick or the species
is at risk ... ultimately it all comes down to the survival of a species.
Spetner revisits a proposal that precedes his thinking on this topic ...
a proposal concerning a form of 'evolution' that's largely ignored. But
information (scientific data) gathered over time provides good reason for
a closer look:

...
The increasing amount of data, accompanied by their increasing
reliability and quantification, compels us now to give serious
consideration to this proposal. Spetner
(NBC) Page viii

In the seventh chapter,
I suggest how there could be evolution without randomness. The
main idea is that the capacity to adapt to a variety of environments
is built into the organism. The environment induces the expression
of this capacity. Spetner
(NBC) Page xi

It's
not just that organisms can adapt to environmental changes, but that the response is nonrandom—not simply a proposition
of chance evolution. Dr. Spetner is just pointing to an information base
that already resides within the organism. That is, this is information is
induced to appear but is not a further invention of new information resulting
from an evolution process.

Genes
that were once useful but aren't now, could still sit in a the
population. The more there are, the longer they can stay dormant
in the population. Some genes would be adaptive now if they could
get put together right. They may need only a recombination or
an inversion to reawaken them. And others could be in the population
in working order, but would not be adaptive now. They could lurk
there, hardly noticed, until they are needed once more. Spetner
(NBC) Page 65

There
are a couple of key terms used above. Dr. Spetner's book is like many texts
that define terms such as recombination or inversion, which are terms describing
how existing portions of the genetic code are moved around [within chromosomes
of a cell]. This is not production of new information but here it's the
expression of information that is changed. The concept of a species building
new information over extensive time periods is addressed by another feature article examining probabilities. If long term evolutionary change
is improbable, then we must ask: What in fact is happening when humans observe
shorter term evolutionary change? And here we can begin to differentiate
what one can observe as opposed to what is often assumed about evolution
in general.

The
Best Approach Might Really Be Nonrandom Variation

When
evolutionists say genetic variation is random they mean to say
the chance of a variation occurring has nothing to do with the
way the variation helps the organism adapt to its environment.
When I say a variation is not random, I mean that the chance of
it occurring has something to do with how the organism adapts
to its environment. I mean and that the adaptation in some way
has been influenced by the environment or the needs of the organism. Spetner (NBC) Page 175

Speaking
of evolutionists who think of 'progress by chance events over time' ...
they:

...
must hold that, on the average, cumulative selection has to add
a little information to the genome at each step. But of all the
mutations studied since genetics became a science, not a single
one has been found that adds a little information. It is not
impossible, in principle, for a mutation to add a little information,
but it is improbable. Spetner (NBC)
Page 179

This
is NO small point!
Yet, how often is this taught to high school or college students? If Dr.
Spetner is correct, then some other process is at work. That's why he is
considering the implications for a nonrandom process.

Remember
that the neo-Darwinian theory (NDT) is widely accepted. The NDT foundation
is built on the assumption of many small random mutations build over time
to make for large evolutionary change. But evidence for this assumption—or
what Spetner calls speculation—came after Darwin.

The
speculation was never the less accepted as possible, even as fact.
But during the half century of the NDT, we have probed the molecular
level of cellular functions. Now, as we come to the close of the
twentieth century, we have a lot of evidence of the nature of the
mutations to which the neo-Darwinians assigned the role of the small
variations. None of this evidence vindicates the Darwinian speculation
that large-scale evolution has its source in random variation. All
evidence is against it. Spetner (NBC) Page 179

There
are recent examples of scientists recognizing what the data are telling
us about nonrandom variations. So, the variation might be a change in a
species after some variable in the environment changes. The genetic change
being nonrandom provides for an outwardly observable change (i.e. in phenotype) but the DNA's
information (i.e. the genotype) is already
there awaiting expression—according to the concept presented here.

But
look at the coordination that must take place. For example, a change in
environment may alter the available food supply. What if the food source
is dramatically changed? The genetic controls in cells must shift to make
appropriate enzymes to utilize the new food source. How does the organism
respond? How does a daughter generation survive?

Dr.
Spetner notes that some genes are turned on or off as needed. Whether on or off, genes in both states reside within
the genome. [So, again, the
genome is like
a place for the information, the
genotype is
the exact information in that place, be it on or off, and the
phenotype is what we 'see' ... that is, the result of the expressed information from
that genotype. Not all information in the genotype need be expressed at
any one time.]

If
the food supply shifts again, alternate genes get turned on. The result
is appropriate enzymes are systematically produced or activated as needed.
This is a system based change not a random set of variations that eventually
hit on the appropriate enzyme. The organism overall maintains life function
in spite of the ongoing changes in its environment. This example may work
better for bacteria than more complex life forms. But survival can come
from within a population that includes some individuals that are already
able to absorb the change and also develop offspring to make the next generation.
This then provides a strategy for species such as birds that have been observed
to change with changes in food sources (that is, in relation to changes
in environmental condition)s. The latter example is in fact based on recent
research on the Galapagos Islands and the finches Darwin is often associated
with! So, nonrandom variations may occur at many levels within the hierarchy
of life.

...
If the changes are random, the chance of a "right" change occurring is proportional to the fraction of "right" changes among all possible ones. The number of "wrong" changes is vastly greater than the
number of "right" ones. But—and here is the important point—if
the genome were set up for an adaptive change to be triggered
by a cue from the environment, then chance wouldn't be involved.
The right adaptive change would be sure to occur when it was needed.

There are several different kinds
of variations of the phenotype that can be induced by the environment
... In the first class are variations in the phenotype that result
from changes in the DNA sequence. In the second class in the phenotype
without a change in the DNA sequence.

The mutations I am calling
for are those that show evidence of being nonrandom in that they
are triggered by the environment. Spetner
(NBC) Page 183

Without
repeating all the details and examples that Dr. Spetner gives in Chapter
7 of his book, we can briefly summarize that he makes a case for responses
by organisms in conjunction with environmental stimuli. While the origin
of the entire information base that is embodied within the organism to begin
with is not demonstrated anywhere by science, clearly there is an apparent
presence of the information revealed by quick changes in the appearance
and function of the organism’s parts (i.e., morphological or biochemical).

Some
of the genetic gymnastics that genes use in working the resident information
include:

...
It can produce deletions, duplications, and translocations. Recombination
is not a random process. It is under strict genetic control, and
requires several special enzymes for its operation. These are
even special genes that affect the efficiency of the recombination
[Griffiths et al. 1993 , pp. 571 ff.]. Spetner
(NBC) Page 186

You
can move information, flip it around, turn it on or off, even
delete it
... but only if it already
exists.

Dr.
Spetner cites examples from the published literature that illustrate how
remarkably rapid responses can be. Even in bacterial systems with short
generation times, if adaptations were expected to come by chance, a result
(response) may take as much as a million years. When experimentation reveals
responses in terms of days instead of millennia, we are provoked to consider
other perspectives (See example from Hall on salicin metabolism Spetner
(NBC) Page 189).

If
the results of these experiments indicate that adaptive mutations
are stimulated by the environment, they contradict the basic dogma
of neo-Darwinism. According to that dogma, mutations are random,
and the kind of mutations that occur are independent of the environment.
If mutations are really nonrandom in the sense that the environment
can stimulate adaptive mutations, and then the paradigm of Darwinian
evolution, which has dominated the biological sciences for close
to 150 years, must be replaced. In science, a paradigm of such stature
cannot be allowed to fall easily. Spetner
(NBC) Page 190

Nonrandom
response following environmental cues presents an interesting solution to
the standard story of change by random selection. In fact, research conducted
to clarify the issue in favor of evolutionism has deepened the controversy
without eliminating the nonrandom perspective.

Darwinian
evolutionists see the nonrandom interpretation of these experimental
results as obviously incorrect because they contradict the neo-Darwinian
dogma. I, on the other hand, see this interpretation as confirming,
on the bacterial level, the nonrandom variation indicated by many
examples in plants and animals—examples that Darwinian evolutionists
have largely ignored because they do not fit in. Resistance to
the nonrandom-variation interpretation stems from a refusal to
abandon the Darwinian agenda that evolution must confirm that
life arose and developed spontaneously. Spetner
(NBC) Page 191

If we insist
that Darwinian mechanisms are solely responsible for what we see, then we'll
miss nonrandom adaptive variation. If we start to think in terms of environmental
signals turning on genes that are already there, then we are expanding on
the current view and adding a new perspective. An alternative to the standard
thinking is being proposed here. And our WindowView portrayal of this proposal
is simply a first look. Also note, Dr. Spetner concedes real answers will
ultimately be decided in the laboratory.

As
indicated above, nonrandom variations may appear as the changes in phenotype
(e.g., changes in bird beak, plumage, length of a mammal's leg or tooth
and jaw structure, etc) without a change to the DNA. This raises the issue
of inheritance of traits from generation to generation. And Dr. Spetner
addresses that issue, too. His explanation covers turning genes on and off
and how this relates from generation to generation, for example:

The
ON/OFF state is passed from mother to daughter cell as the cells
differentiate. Not any method of turning genes ON and OFF lends
itself to being passed on through cell division to later cell
generations. How cells during development pass on their genetic
state to daughter cells is not yet well understood. Spetner
(NBC) Page 192

Another
important consideration is how nonrandom variations fit within the fossil
record.

One
can't help wondering how much of the fossil record might be the
result of the direct influence of environment on the phenotype
without any change in the genotype. We know the form and shape
of teeth is strongly influenced by diet. Similarly, the form of
bones is strongly influenced by the forces to which they are subjected
during growth. Many of the fossils that have made the news as
" missing links " consist mostly of teeth. Most of the rest are
bones. What kind of support can fossils of bones and teeth, then,
give to the randomness postulate of the neo-Darwinian theory? Spetner (NBC) Page 196

And
implied in all this is a standing base of information. That's really what
a genotype is ... that is like a library all set up with no new books being
added ... the library is all there. The phenotype (e.g. certain appearance
of some structure) may really change and yet this external change only lends
from what is in the library. A change back is also based on information
in the library. And as suggested here this interplay is not dependent on
random mutation or new information being added. Mutations in fact, as illustrated
by Dr. Spetner's examples, may cause a loss and not a gain in the library's
information.

John
McDonald of the University of Georgia has pointed out the lack
of correlation between the sizes to of the phenotypic change and
DNA change. Differences in DNA between species seem to be unrelated
to their supposed evolutionary divergence [McDonald 1990]. Citing
the work of Allan Wilson and his co-workers [Wilson et al. 1974],
McDonald noted the differences and similarities between frogs
and mammals. There are two frog species, which are very much alike,
but differ greatly in their genomes. The mammals, however, which
have great differences in phenotype, differ little in genotype.
These data indicate that the size of genetic changes may be unrelated
to size of phenotypic changes. Indeed, much genetic change may
be irrelevant to evolutionary change.

On the other hand,
many examples have been reported of the adaptive phenotypic changes
triggered by environmental cues. (For starter's see West-Eberhard
[1986, 1989], Bradshaw [1965], Harrison [1980], Schlichting [1986],
Stearns [1989], and the hundreds of references in these papers.) Spetner
(NBC) Page 198

And
what if the repository of information in this genetic library shows something
else ... like flexible design! An intelligent use of information, resources,
and prudent strategy for survival may reveal a dynamic built into the library.
The design works within the environmental signals, constraints placed on
growth, giving balance sustaining life beyond systems simply turned on ...
the genome is more than information for information's sake ... the tip off
here is flexibility ... call it plasticity.

An
organism's ability to change as the environment changes is known
as phenotypic plasticity. It has been widely observed in
both plants and animals for more than a century. Spetner
(NBC) Page 199

Dr.
Spetner uses an example based on plants that appear to vary their seed production
based on spacing. A set genetic control might result in constant number
of seeds, but the plasticity shows up as less seed production in
plants that are closer together. More seeds are produced when (e.g. Linseed)
plants have greater space between them. Again, think about the coordination
here. A simple 'dumb system' would always produce the same level of
seed output. The variation appears linked by design. Perhaps this is related
to energetics and feedback systems beyond any one plant alone. We are assuming
growth responses aren't entirely limiting in such examples. How does a plant
'know' to regulate seed output? More than hormones or nutrition, there is
an information system at work. After all, why waste resources and energy
where there is little gain to the individual or species as a whole? Further,
there is an optimizing the number of seeds required to further colonize
the area that remains between mature plants. The plasticity implies more
is at work that simply ending a life cycle with seed production.

Dr.
Spetner is stepping out with some suggestions:

I
am suggesting here that organisms have a built-in capability of
adapting to their environment. I am suggesting that to the extent
that evolution occurs, it occurs at the level of the organism.
This suggestion differs sharply from the thesis of the NDT, which
holds that evolution occurs only at the level of the population.
Organisms contain within themselves the information that enables
them to develop a phenotype adaptive to a variety of environments.
The adaptation can occur by a change in the genome through a genetic
change triggered by the environment, or it can occur without any
genetic change. Spetner
(NBC) Page 200

Consider how an
engineer would design organisms to respond to a whole host of environmental
changes ... the best approach ...

would be to build into the species the ability to switch among several
forms, each highly adapted to one of the environments. He would design
the switch to be triggered by a cue from the environment. I am suggesting
here that living organisms have the capability of switching from one
phenotype to another when cued by the environment.

For the organism to have this
capability, it has to have in it the necessary information. No one
yet knows how much capability this sort is built into free- living
cells, plants, and animals. The more built-in potential there is,
the more the information the organism must carry. One would expect
the seat of this information to lie in the genome. Can the genome
carry all this information? There is a vast amount of DNA in plants
and animals whose function is as yet unknown. Could the role of some
of this DNA be to encode the potential phenotypic diversity needed
to adapt to a variety of environments? Mitochondrial DNA and plastid
DNA also may play a role in coding this information. Indeed, both
mitochondrial DNA and plastid DNA have been reported to have some
effect on the phenotype in plants [Walbot and Cullis 1985]. Spetner
(NBC) Page 201

Dr. Spetner provides a discussion of Darwin’s finches from the perspective
that new species appear as the result of environmental influences and
not the putative forces typically associated with gradual modification
and natural selection. Another example based on finches on Laysan Island
show rapid change over a very short time frame. [Page 204]

The
diversity of the finches on Southeast and North Islands could,
however, be explained as a phenotypic phenomena entirely. A change
of diet might produce the appropriate bill shape and jaw structure.
Alternatively, the environmental effect could have thrown a genetic
switch, which would have, in turn, changed the phenotype. In either
case, the effect would appear in many individuals. There would
be no waiting for a mutation to occur or for natural selection
to work. A change to a new species could occur quickly, even in
one generation.

These results
show that bill size in finches can change from one adaptive type
to another with diet. Spetner (NBC) Page 205

A
New Hypothesis: The NonRandom Evolution Hypothesis

We
are giving a lot of attention to Dr. Spetner's ideas to make a simple
point on perspectives. Right or wrong, different thinking is commonly
excused by the main stream. If inn this case Dr. Spetner is correct, then
the course of the main stream is misdirected. To alter the stream course
is an enormous task. In all that is noted above we are brought to a proposal—an
alternative hypothesis—which is put forth for our consideration:

The
NREH is a hypothesis that explains many observed phenomena that
the NDT does not explain. According to the NREH, adaptive modifications
in organisms occur when the environment induced is a change in either
the phenotype or the genotype. It can account for the environmentally
induced adaptive mutations reported in bacteria. It can account
for the pervasive convergences found throughout the plant and animal
kingdoms. The NREH does not suffer from contradictions of the NDT,
and promises therefore to provide a more consistent picture of life. Spetner (NBC) Page 208

Quotations from "Not By Chance"
(NBC) written by L. Spetner, are used by permission granted by Dr. Lee Spetner.

Writer / Editor: Dr. T. Peterson, Director,
WindowView.org

(081904)

Excerpts and links to Feature Articles:

''Every
student of biological evolution learns about peppered moths. During the
Industrial Revolution, dark ("melanic") forms of this moth, Biston
betularia, became much more common than light ("typical") forms, though
the proportion of melanics declined after the passage of pollution-control
legislation. When experiments in the 1950s pointed to cryptic coloration
and differential bird predation as its cause, "industrial melanism" became
the classical story of evolution by natural selection. Subsequent research,
however, has revealed major flaws in the classical story. It's time to
take another look.'' MORE on this, read: Dr.
Jonathan Wells on Evolution's Example Based on the Peppered Moth

For a general listing of books, visit the WindowView Book Page for: Science and Scripture .

References of Interest

Step Up To Life

Time spent looking ... through a window on life and choice ... brings the opportunity to see in a new light. The offer for you to Step Up To Life is presented on many of the web pages at WindowView. Without further explanation we offer you the steps here ... knowing that depending on what you have seen or may yet explore in the window ... these steps will be the most important of your life ...